IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea21/312710.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Resolving the Reality Gap in Farm Regulation Voting Models

Author

Listed:
  • Hopkins, Kelsey A.
  • McKendree, Melissa G. S.
  • Schaefer, K. Aleks
  • Rice, Emma D.

Abstract

In the United States, 19 state-level bills and ballot initiatives concerning farm animal welfare (FAW) have been adopted across 12 states. In this research, we seek to model the evolution of the state-level FAW regulatory landscape as a function of legislature characteristics and constituent demographics. More specifically, we utilize a two-stage model to assess (i) whether and when a given state considers FAW measures, and (ii) if so, the likelihood the measures are passed. Using our model, we estimate the likelihood of FAW adoption outcomes for all 50 states. We find that the cost to the egg and pork industries to upgrade to cage- and crate-free production methods in the states most likely to pass a FAW regulation in the future is small relative to the size of the industry. Our findings will assist producers and industry stakeholders in gauging the future of the regulatory landscape and provide guidance on whether to upgrade existing enclosures to comply with mandates on the horizon or to continue operating with “conventional” enclosures.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Rice, Emma D., 2021. "Resolving the Reality Gap in Farm Regulation Voting Models," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 312710, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea21:312710
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.312710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/312710/files/Abstracts_21_06_14_13_30_59_24__98_226_119_205_0.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.312710?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Dimitris Politis & Halbert White, 2004. "Automatic Block-Length Selection for the Dependent Bootstrap," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 53-70.
    3. François Bourguignon & Martin Fournier & Marc Gurgand, 2007. "Selection Bias Corrections Based On The Multinomial Logit Model: Monte Carlo Comparisons," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(1), pages 174-205, February.
    4. Franklin Bailey Norwood & Glynn Tonsor & Jayson L Lusk, 2019. "I Will Give You My Vote but Not My Money: Preferences for Public versus Private Action in Addressing Social Issues," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 96-132, March.
    5. Bovay, John & Sumner, Daniel A., 2019. "Animal Welfare, Ideology, and Political Labels: Evidence from California’s Proposition 2 and Massachusetts’s Question 3," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 44(2), May.
    6. Smithson, Katie & Corbin, Max & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey, 2014. "Predicting State-Wide Votes on Ballot Initiatives to Ban Battery Cages and Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 46(1), pages 1-18, February.
    7. John G. Matsusaka, 2005. "Direct Democracy Works," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 185-206, Spring.
    8. Conner Mullally & Jayson L Lusk, 2018. "The Impact of Farm Animal Housing Restrictions on Egg Prices, Consumer Welfare, and Production in California," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(3), pages 649-669.
    9. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    10. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    11. John G. Matsusaka, 1992. "Economics of Direct Legislation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 541-571.
    12. Colette S. Vogeler, 2019. "Why Do Farm Animal Welfare Regulations Vary Between EU Member States? A Comparative Analysis of Societal and Party Political Determinants in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 317-335, March.
    13. Daniel A. Sumner, 2017. "Economics of US State and Local Regulation of Farm Practices, with Emphasis on Restrictions of Interstate Trade," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 13-31, October.
    14. Bovay, John & Alston, Julian M., 2016. "GM Labeling Regulation by Plebiscite: Analysis of Voting on Proposition 37 in California," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    15. Bovay, John & Alston, Julian M., 2018. "GMO food labels in the United States: Economic implications of the new law," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 14-25.
    16. James J. Heckman, 1976. "The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 475-492, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Menale Kassie & Hailemariam Teklewold & Paswel Marenya & Moti Jaleta & Olaf Erenstein, 2015. "Production Risks and Food Security under Alternative Technology Choices in Malawi: Application of a Multinomial Endogenous Switching Regression," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 640-659, September.
    18. Frederick J. Boehmke & John W. Patty, 2007. "The Selection Of Policies For Ballot Initiatives: What Voters Can Learn From Legislative Inaction," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 97-121, March.
    19. Salvatore Di Falco, 2014. "Adaptation to climate change in Sub-Saharan agriculture: assessing the evidence and rethinking the drivers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(3), pages 405-430.
    20. Colin A Carter & K Aleks Schaefer, 2019. "Impacts of Mandatory GE Food Labeling: A Quasi-Natural Experiment," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(1), pages 58-73.
    21. Daniel A. Sumner, 2017. "Economics of US State and Local Regulation of Farm Practices, with Emphasis on Restrictions of Interstate Trade," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 13-31, October.
    22. Clinton L. Neill & Rodney B. Holcomb & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Estimating potential beggar‐thy‐neighbor effects of state labeling programs," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(1), pages 3-19, January.
    23. Abdul Nafeo Abdulai, 2016. "Impact of conservation agriculture technology on household welfare in Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 729-741, November.
    24. Malone, Trey & Lusk, Jayson L., 2016. "Putting the Chicken Before the Egg Price: An Ex Post Analysis of California's Battery Cage Ban," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-15, September.
    25. Ortega, David L. & Wolf, Christopher A., 2018. "Demand for farm animal welfare and producer implications: Results from a field experiment in Michigan," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 74-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kaminski, Danielle M. & Caputo, Vincenzina & McKendree, Melissa G.S., . "The US Public’s Attitudes on Animal and Worker Welfare in the Dairy and Poultry Industries," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(1).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lai, Yufeng & Boaitey, Albert & Minegishi, Kota, 2022. "Behind the veil: Social desirability bias and animal welfare ballot initiatives," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Hopkins, Kelsey A. & McKendree, Melissa G. S. & Rice, Emma D., 2020. "Understanding the U.S. Publics’ Voting on Animal Welfare and Genetically Modified Organism Labeling Ballot Initiatives," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304519, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Paul, Andrew S. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Norwood, F. Bailey & Tonsor, Glynn T., 2019. "An experiment on the vote-buy gap with application to cage-free eggs," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 102-109.
    4. Wang, Yuhan & Qin, Zhiran & Sexton, Richard J., 2023. "Impacts of Subnational Regulation of Production Practices for Foods Consumed within the Jurisdiction: California’s Proposition 12," 2023 Annual Meeting, July 23-25, Washington D.C. 335949, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Colin A. Carter & K. Aleks Schaefer & Daniel Scheitrum, 2021. "Piecemeal Farm Regulation and the U.S. Commerce Clause," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 1141-1163, May.
    6. Malone, Trey & Schaefer, K. Aleks & Lusk, Jayson L., 2021. "Unscrambling U.S. egg supply chains amid COVID-19," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    7. Lee, Hanbin & Sexton, Richard J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2021. "Economics of Mandates on Farm Practices: Lessons from California’s Proposition 12 Regulations on Pork Sold in California," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313920, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    8. Ufer, Danielle, 2022. "State Policies for Farm Animal Welfare in Production Practices of U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries: An Overview," USDA Miscellaneous 333544, United States Department of Agriculture.
    9. Makaiko G. Khonje & Julius Manda & Petros Mkandawire & Adane Hirpa Tufa & Arega D. Alene, 2018. "Adoption and welfare impacts of multiple agricultural technologies: evidence from eastern Zambia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(5), pages 599-609, September.
    10. Martey, Edward & Etwire, Prince Maxwell & Abdoulaye, Tahirou, 2020. "Welfare impacts of climate-smart agriculture in Ghana: Does row planting and drought-tolerant maize varieties matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Hanbin Lee & Richard J. Sexton & Daniel A. Sumner, 2023. "National and subnational regulation of farm practices for consumer products sold within a jurisdiction: California's Proposition 12," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 838-853, November.
    12. Carlo Prato & Bruno Strulovici, 2017. "The hidden cost of direct democracy: How ballot initiatives affect politicians’ selection and incentives," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(3), pages 440-466, July.
    13. Shon M. Ferguson, 2023. "Unconstrained trade: The impact of EU cage bans on exports of poultry‐keeping equipment," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 435-449, June.
    14. Ochs, Dan & Wolf, Christopher A. & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Bir, Courtney & Lai, John, 2019. "Hen housing system information effects on U.S. egg demand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-1.
    15. Christina Biedny & Trey Malone & Jayson L. Lusk, 2020. "Exploring Polarization in US Food Policy Opinions," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 434-454, September.
    16. Lee, Hanbin & Sexton, Richard J. & Sumner, Daniel A., 2022. "Government Restrictions on Food Available to Consumers: Economics of Regulations that Limit Farming Practices for Products Sold within Jurisdictions, with Application to California’s 2022 Pork Rules," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322438, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Wondimagegn Tesfaye & Garrick Blalock & Nyasha Tirivayi, 2021. "Climate‐Smart Innovations and Rural Poverty in Ethiopia: Exploring Impacts and Pathways," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 878-899, May.
    18. Aguiar-Conraria, Luís & Magalhães, Pedro C., 2010. "How quorum rules distort referendum outcomes: Evidence from a pivotal voter model," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 541-557, December.
    19. Damette, Olivier & Delacote, Philippe & Lo, Gaye Del, 2018. "Households energy consumption and transition toward cleaner energy sources," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 751-764.
    20. Oh, Sohae & Vukina, Tomislav, 2020. "Quantifying the Welfare Effects of Laying-hen Cage Ban," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agricultural and Food Policy; Agribusiness; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q13 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Markets and Marketing; Cooperatives; Agribusiness
    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea21:312710. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.